Re: [PATCH] xen-netfront: Fix handling packets on compound pages with skb_segment

[Wei Liu]

On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 03:24:11PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 10:11:10 +0100
> 
> > On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 03:33:37PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 12:02:46 +0100
> >> 
> >> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 01:25:20PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> >> >> If you were to have a 64-slot TX queue, you ought to be able to handle
> >> >> this theoretical 51 slot SKB.
> >> > 
> >> > There's two problems:
> >> > 1. IIRC a single page ring has 256 slots, allowing 64 slots packet
> >> >    yields 4 in-flight packets in worst case.
> >> > 2. Older netback could not handle this large number of slots and it's
> >> >    likely to deem the frontend malicious.
> >> > 
> >> > For #1, we don't actually care that much if guest screws itself by
> >> > generating 64 slot packets. #2 is more concerning.
> >> 
> >> How many slots can the older netback handle?
> > 
> > I listed those two problems in the context "if we were to lift this
> > limit in the latest net-next tree", so "older netback" actually refers
> > to netback from 3.10 to 3.16.
> > 
> > The current implementation allows the number of slots X:
> >  1. X <= 18, valid packet
> >  2. 18 < X < fatal_slot_count, dropped
> >  3. X >= fatal_slot_count, malicious frontend
> > 
> > fatal_slot_count has default value of 20.
> 
> Given what I've seen so far, I think the only option is to linearize
> the packet.
> 
> BTW, we do have a netdev->gso_max_segs tunable drivers can set, but
> it might not cover all of the cases you need to handle.
> 
> Maybe we can create a similar tunable which triggers
> skb_needs_linearize() in the transmit path.
> 
> The advantage of such a tunable is that this can be worked with
> inside of TCP to avoid creating such packets in the first place.
> 
> For example, all of the MAX_SKB_FRAGS checks you see in net/ipv4/tcp.c
> could be replaced with tests against this new tunable in struct netdevice.

+1 for this.

Avoiding generating such packets in transmit path in the first place is
even better.

Wei.

> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/